Was the cross necessary...?

[jfrog]

For those of you who are wondering, I am the same jfrog that chats on the ac.  For those of you who don't know me from there, nice to meet you!  That's all the introduction your goina get for now.  So on with my discussion...

Was the cross necessary for the forgiveness of sins?  At first this question seems easily answered and in a sense it is.  Of course the cross, which entails the death and resurrection of Christ, was necessary for forgiveness.  I mean that is exactly what it accomplished.  But, I'm not really trying to ask whether or not we are forgiven because of the cross.  What I'm trying to ask is why did God choose the cross as the way of bringing about forgiveness?  Were there other ways the same effect of forgiveness could have been accomplished?  If there were other ways as I suspect, I mean God is God, he can do anything... then why did God choose to have a perfectly innocent person suffer and die?  I mean that's what happened, Christ suffered and died and apparently it was the best way since it was the way God did it.  So I guess what I'm asking is how could have Christ suffering and dying have been the best way for us to obtain forgiveness of sins?  I have some thoughts on this but I'd rather hear your opinions first.

[Robert Williams]

The cross was important on "numerous levels" of humanity's redemption (for lack of a better way to state it).  If you consider the Hebrew alefbet (alphabet), the last letter, which symbolized the seal of a covenant, was called Tau, and was the symbol of the cross (although not the traditional plus sign that is depicted, more along the lines of a doorpost and side lintels).  It's no coincidence that the cross became the seal of God's covenant with humanity.

It's also relevant to the ancient tradition of blood sacrifice, as seen in the Old Testament.  When two men entered into a blood covenant, they would cut an animal in half, or quarters (the size of the animal depended upon the number of people who would partake of the sacrificial meal) and place it on the altar.  The "stronger partner" (so called because he was the initiator, not because he was superior in any way) would pass between the pieces of the cut up animal on the altar.  He was sure to get blood on him in the process, but if he was truly passionate about entering into the blood covenant, he would reach down and scoop up handfuls of blood and splash them all over until he was drenched in the blood. (This may seem very odd and barbaric to us, but it was quite normal in ancient cultures to do so).  After this, the "weaker partner" (so called because he was the acceptor, not because he was inferior in any way) would do the same.  Oddly enough, even in ancient times, this tradition was known as being "washed in the blood" (may bring some familair hymns to mind), and made the sober statement: "May the same thing happen to me, that happened to this animal, if I fail to fulfill my part of this covenant!" This type of blood covenant was so binding, that it passed along through consecutive generations (i.e. your children, grandchildren and so on were obligated to uphold the terms of the covenant you made under the penalty of death.)

In Genesis 15, when God first entered into covenant with Abraham, we see that only God passed between the pieces, signifying that God would uphold His promise to Abraham, even if Abraham failed to do so.  God took the burden of the covenant upon Himself.

However, at Sinai, when God formally proposed to Israel to be His bride and they accepted, they entered into a blood covenant.  Moses placed half the blood in basins on the altar (God's portion) and sprinkled (or splattered, as you would by flicking a paint brush) half the blood on the children of Israel (signifying their portion, or "passing through").  In doing this they told God that if they failed to uphold their end of the covenant (in doing everything He instructed them), that may the same thing happen to them that happened to the sacrifice on the altar.  Almost immediately (in 40 days or less), they had turned away from their covenant with God, created an idol and started worshiping it in the manner of pagans, going so far as to call it by God's name. In short, they had pronounced the death penalty upon themselves.

Because of God's mercy (upon Moses' intercession), God did not kill them, but once again pointed toward a future Redemer who would once and for all fulfill the law of covenant sacrifice.

The significance of the cross was the statement of Messiah of taking on our penalty--may the same thing happen to Him, that happened to the original covenant sacrifice--to be ripped apart and sacrificed, letting His life's blood pay the price that belonged to every one who not only originally forsook the covenant at Sinai, but that would ever hope to be a part of God's bride.

Shalom and God bless!
RW

[titushome]

Great post, Robert!